On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:33:50AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > ... > > Back to the main subject I still don't understand the idea of running > > a kernel daemon as pid == 1. What would that buy us? > > I think the idea is that for lightweight application containers, where > there is no explicit /sbin/init process, the kthread would act as > reaper for the pid_ns so that the first userspace process could freely > exit while other processes continued.
ah, that might actually work, but the question remains, what resources would such a kernel thread consume? think 500 containers with a) one process running inside b) one process and a kernel thread if the kernel thread uses up only half the amount of resources the actual process does, it will increase the overall resource consumption by 50% (which is quite suboptimal) best, Herbert > I still prefer that we forego that kthread, and just work toward > allowing pid1 to exit. Really I think the crufty /proc/<pid> handling > is the only reason we were going to punt on that for now. So for our > first stab I think we should have pid=1 exiting cause all other > processes in the same pid_ns to be killed. Then when we get /proc fixed > up, we can change the semantics so that pid=1 exiting just switches the > pid_namespace's reaper to either the parent of the killed pid=1, or to > the global init. > > -serge > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
